Featured The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

The Church began at Pentacost, so the OT believers were not in the presence of God as we now are right after physical death, you do remember that Jesus went down to Sheol to take out the OT believers to now arise with him, as they needed him to die and resurrect to complete their 'salvation" experience. correct?

And if the OT saints had the same experience with the Holy spirit as we now all do, why did God point to a future day in Zechariah/Isaiah/Joel/Jeremiah et all, when messiah comes unto his people, THEN the spirit comes into their very hearts?

 

The scripture does not say that anywhere. Lazerus is never said to have gone to "hades" but to paradise and paradise has always been heaven in Jewish thought as well as in all other scripture references. David sees only two opposite places (hades and heaven - Psa.139) and claims that he is "continually" with God while he is on earth and "afterwards" in glory which he calls heaven not hades:

Psa. 73: 23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.

In David's mind "Continually" only has TWO PLACES possible "on earth" now and "in heaven" AFTERWARDS. In another psalm he speaks of his death in terms of flight "fly away" to glory.

Hades is the realm of the dead, meaning the dead bodies of both Christians and non-Christians (believers in Messiah and non-believers in Messiah) or UPPER HADES. It is the realm of DEAD spirits or the lost. Hence, the only aspect of the saint that goes to hades is his DEAD body which refers to the grave, as hades is translated half the time "grave" in the KJV and in 1 Corinthians in the context of the DEAD body it is translated "grave":

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, [Gr. hades] where is thy victory?

Remember Paul is speaking of his OWN HOPE of resurrection of his OWN BODY long after Pentecost and we know Paul's spirit did not go to hades at his death but to heaven. Hades is the PLACE OF THE DEAD (dead bodies and dead spirits).

(Psa. 7Your interpretation is based upon inferences rather than clear teaching. Ephesians 4:9 can just as easily be interpreted to refer to the grave (lower parts) as the grave is metaphorically described as a womb out of which Christ was the "firstborn" (Col. 1:15)

Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

which the formation of David in the womb of his mother is also called the "lower parts" (Psa. 139:13-15)

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Ephesians 4:8 can just as easily be a quotation from

Jud 5:12 ¶ Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam.

It refers to taking captive what previously had Israel in captivity or overcoming their foes. Roman Generals would lead their conquored foes in the streets of Rome while giving gifts taken from their foes or the spoils of war. Here Paul is simply saying in another way what he says in:

Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

As far as Peter's reference that is so often abused and misused, it was the "Spirit" of Christ preaching in Noah to those who rejected the gospel, AS THE SPIRIT of Christ indwelt and worked through all prophets prior to Pentecost (1 Pet. 1:8-10) in addition to common saints such as non prophets like JOSHUA but those whom he preached had been in prison since the flood. By the way the salvation that all the prophets looked into was the FULFILLMENT of the gospel promise that "now" occurred in the life of Peter in the incarnation, life and death of Jesus Christ and the yet future fulfillment to occur beyond the life of Peter in the resurrection and glorification of the body which all the saints in the past, present and future are still waiting together for (Heb. 11:39-40).

You are confusing the promises to the NATION of Israel at HIS SECOND ADVENT with individuals who were presently justified, regenerated and indwelt and the progressive work by the indwellling of the Spirit was manifested in both the fruit of the Spirit as "faith" is a fruit of the indwelling Spirit (Heb. 11).

 

Darrell claims that John 7:37 and the present tense is to be understood as a futuristic present - ¶ In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

However, does that mean lost people only "thirst" and "drink" beyond Pentecost? This admonition to come him and to drink of him is a metaphor of partaking of him by faith and is used many times by Christ in his ministry. So according to Darrell's interpretation Christs abundant use of this metaphor had not PRESENT significance but can only refer to the spiritual need of Christ AFTER Pentecost.

Darrel claimed there is no INFLOW in this text but when you "drink" something does it not go FLOW IN to your mouth down your throat into your belly?

Moreover, the idea of a present tense that conveys a prophetic future is absurd in this context because Christ actually uses the FUTURE tense in the very next verse with regard to the OUTFLOW from the belly what had previously FLOWED IN to the belly and it is this FUTURE TENSE in verse 38 that John refers to in the FUTURE tense in verse 39.

So, there is no contextual basis for the supposed futuristic present of the present tense in verse 37 unless no man prior to Pentecost could thirst and hunger metaphorically for Christ? There is no contextual basis for interpreting the present tense as a futuristic present unless the vast number of times Jesus had and continued to call men to "come" to him and "eat" and "drink" of him for over his whole ministry was insincere and only a teaser. Are the following all futuristic present as well?

Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Remember that to "eat" and to "drink" are metaphorical for partaking of him by faith or coming to him by faith and Jesus uses the present tense exhortation to believe in him numerous times throughout his ministry and yet according to Darrell's interpretation such exhortations were PRESENTLY meaningless as they could not do so until after Pentecost. Remember also, that the promise of everlasting life is found in the present tense with present tense believing showing they are identical action or contemporary in occurrence.

Moreover, how then could he condemn the Jews for something they could not do according to Darrell's interpretation:

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

To respond they could come/drink/eat/believe prior to Pentecost but could not partake of "eternal life" or drink into the Spirit makes his promises invalid because both are found in the present tense or identical action.

What Darrell cannot possibly deny (perhaps he might) is that the Holy Spirit indwelt all the prophets (1 Pet. 1:10) prior to Pentecost but even non-prophets and non-kings, and non-priests but common believers like Joshua and Caleb:

Nu 27:18 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;

The Spirit was indwelling him BEFORE the Spirit of wisdom came UPON him through laying on of the hands of Moses (De 34:9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.), just as the Spirit was in the Samaritan believers before the Spirit came UPON them manfiested in sign gifts in Acts 8:14-17 which signs and wonders was so self-evident that Simon wanted to purchase the power to bestow the same apostolic power of laying hands upon people to bestow spiritual gifts.

 

The "mystery" of the gospel does not refer to the current necessary substance (as progressive revelation provided more details than such became part of the necessary substance) of the gospel because that was no "mystery" as it was clearly revealed by the preaching of all the prophets(Acts 10:43) so that Paul could claim that he said "no other things" different than the essential gospel preached by all the prophets (Acts 26:22-23) as it was the same essential gospel sufficient "remission of sins" or justification by faith then as now (Heb. 4:2). So the gospel was preached prior to Pentecost. The gospel was preached in "seed" form in Genesis and sufficient for personal salvation by faith according to the gospel revelation provided. As time progressed more details were revealed in addition to the "seed" form until it matured in all of the details actually fulfilled in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ. However, prior to Christ, the "seed' form was completely sufficient for someone like Job to claim "I KNOW my redeemer liveth."

However, in the sense of complete fulfillment in the actual incarnation and life and death its beginning occurred with the actual incarnation (Mk. 1:1). We call all four accounts of his birth, life and death as "gospel" accounts because they provide all details in complete fulfillment.

The "mystery" of the gospel or gospel aspects not yet revealed in clarity prior to the incarnation, life and death of Christ was the "cross" as the instrument of death. Another "mystery" of the gospel was the change of missionary subjects from Jews to Gentiles.

However, to argue that the actual incarnation, life and death had to occur before any personal application of salvation dependent upon his incarnation, life and death could occur is completely repudiated by Scripture. Justification is wholly dependent upon the life and death and resurrection of Christ and yet Abraham is set forth as the model or "father" for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12, 16, 22-25) in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8). Therefore, the often abused quotation in Hebrews that one must first die before the will is put into effect clearly cannot mean what Darrell interprets it to mean as even he must admit that many of the affects were already applied (all the fruit of the Spirit are manifested before Pentecost (faith - Heb. 11; patience - Job; progresssive sanctification by the Spirit or spiritual growth; justification = remission of sins and imputed righteousness not from works, or works of the law). In context the writer of Hebrew is contrasting the "new" with the "old" declaring the "old" anticipated the new and therefore the new MUST occur just as death of a testator must first occur before the will of the testator is in effect. The analogy goes no further than a proof of necessity and the New covenant was a necessity as the old had no significance apart from the new as all of its ordinances and types were "shadows" that required the fulfillment in the new.

Furthermore, there are FOUR covenants mentioned in Hebrews (1) the covenant of Abraham - Heb. 6; (2) the "old" covenant and (3) the new covenant - Heb. 8-10 and (4) the blood of the everlasting covenant - Heb. 13:20. All the first three were visible expressions of the fourth. The fourth is "everlasting" because it is the covenant between the parties of the Divine Trinity ALONE with regard to the eternal purpose of salvation (Eph. 1:4-13; Rom. 8:28-34; etc.). The Abrahamic covenant is the prime Old Testament example of the PERSONAL application of salvation "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) through faith in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8). The "old" covenant is the "SHADOW" or EXTERNAL application of the everlasting gospel that could never ever take away sins literally or save anyone literally but only provided remission of sins and salvation in type. Individuals that were actually saved, justified (sins remitted, imputed righteousness) expressed their PERSONAL faith in keeping with the example of the covenant with Abraham by obeying such EXTERNAL ordinances as did Abraham with circumcision. However, the SHADOW of EXTERNALS found in the OLD covenant PUBLIC administration anticipated the fulfillment of those SHADOWS and TYPES in the actual coming of Christ, his life, his death, his resurrection and thus necessitated a "new" PUBLIC administration in keeping with the Abrahamic PERSONAL covenant but "better" because it was not based upon faith that anticipated the gospel truth as was the case of Abraham and all saints prior to the first coming but was based upon the fulfillment of all prophetic anticipations.

Actual INDIVIDUAL salvation from Genesis to Revelation is through the "everlasting covenant" (1 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3; Acts 13:34). Darrell and others confuse the promises in the Old Testament of NATIONAL salvation under the "new" covenant (Ezek. 36:25-28; Jer. 31:33-34) with individual salvation when individual salvation was already a reality according to the everlasting covenant.

Nevertheless, Justification before God has its only basis in the life, death and resurrection of Christ and no SINNER before Pentecost could be justified before God, without Christ's righteousness and death for sins being imputed to his account by faith and Abraham and ALL individual saints embraced the essential gospel and obtained IN THEIR OWN PERSON these benefits by faith, just as we do by faith. The righteousness provided was "without works" or without his personal obedience to God (Rom. 4:1-5) and without obedience to the "works of the Law" of God because he lived 430 years prior to Moses and the giving of the Law.

To respond that it was merely "faith" that God imputed righteousness to Abraham is to refuse to accept that Paul previously defined that "faith" to be in the provision God promised would be fulfilled "in Christ" or "in him" (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-5:2). Hence, the "faith" that God imputes righteousness to Abraham is the SAME FAITH the righteousness of Christ is imputed TO US - faith in the same essential gospel or PROMISE of a Savior to redeem us from sins

Furthermore, Abraham has to be interpreted in the light of Job's claims as they were nearly contemporares who are both set forth as models for us (father of patience, father of faith). Job said "I KNOW my redeemer liveth and I shall see him" in his own body (resurrection) after the death deterioration of his physical body. Technically, both Abraham, Job and all Old Testament believers were "saints" and "Christians" or believers in the "Messiah/Christ" = Christians.

 

However, the major problem for Darrel and Jeshua is that man's problem began in Eden and their solution begins on Pentecost. They don't understand the solution becuase they don't understand the problem.

The problem is UNIVERSAL and TWO FOLD (1) Sin and (2) death immediately beginning with Adam. Justification is the ONLY solution to this two fold problem. Sin must be remitted and righteousness must be obtained or else eternal hell is the only possible consequence.

The solution to the first aspect of the problem is Christ's life and death. His life provides the ONLY POSSIBLE righteousness to justify a sinner before God because they are without God, thus without life, without light and without holiness(righteousness). His death is the solution to sin because only His death remits sins. Animal sacrifices NEVER LITERALLY remitted sins for anyone at anytime but were mere "shadows" or types as is baptism and the Lord's Supper that picture what faith must actually embrace (the gospel) and such types only serve as EXTERNAL EXPRESSIONS of internal faith in the gospel.

The solution to the second aspect is the Holy Spirit indwelling as death is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God and thus the only possible solution for Spiritual separation is SPIRITUAL UNION with God.

Without Spiritual union there is no kind of SUBJECTIVE salvation possible. There is no fruit of the Spirit possible (faith, patience, love, etc.). There is no possible progressive sanctification possible, no hope of resurrection possible. No eternal hope of eternity with God possible. All who have not the indwelling Spirit are "none of his" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Darrell's position is both logically and Biblical absurd. He denies there are only two possible conditions among mankind (1) Those in Spiritual union with God versus; (2) those Spiritual separated from God, and yet at the same time admits that sin brought individual spiritual separation from God and thus under the condemnation and eternal penalty of sin. He denies that the only possible solution for SPIRITUAL SEPARATION is spiritual UNION because his system of interpretation does not allow him to believe that was possible until after Pentecost.

However, spiritual SEPARATION is admittedly the universal problem BEFORE and AFTER Pentecost. This forces him to come up with another solution than the only possible solution (spiritual union) which is ANOTHER GOSPEL before Pentecost and another way of salvation by justification through obedience to God's law and remission of sins through LITERAL SACRIFICES.

However, it is the SPIRITUAL INTERNAL aspect of man that is separated from God and EXTERNALS cannot provide any solution for an INTERNAL problem of spiritual separation. Only internal UNION can resolve internal SEPARATION. Spiritual UNION is indwelling, as the spiritual aspect of man is INTERNAL and for internal union to occur between man and God it must be INDWELLING or else there is no Spiritual union with God between internal man and God.

BTW the caps is not yelling, but are for emphasis. If you have a different way to express emphasis good for you but this is my way.

There is only ONE WAY through ONE SAVIOR for salvation before Pentecost (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6) and it is the same way after Pentecost (Acts 4:12; 10:43) and by the very same substantive gospel (Heb. 4:2).There is really but one actual covenant for INDIVIDUAL salvation from Genesis to Revelation (Heb. 13:20) while other other covenants (Abrahamic, "old" "new") are merely illustrative or public administrative forms of it.

 

15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Paul is merely arguing why the death of Christ was necessary. He gives three reasons. First, there was actual redemption applied by God to those living under the Old Covenant (v. 15) but it was not ibased upon the EXTERNAL OLD COVENANT "shadow" as that covenant never ever literally remitted the sins of anyone at anytime except by figure or "shadow" (Heb. 10:1-4). Hence, the death of Christ was necessary to make God just in justifying them based upon HIS PROMISE in the gospel preached to them that the actual provision would be made by His Messiah (Rom. 3:24-26).

Second, Testaments are dedicated by blood (v. 16) and the old was dedicated by blood (v. 18). Therefore, it is necessary that the "new" must be dedicated by blood and therefore Christ must die.

Third, the overall context of Hebrews 8-10 is that the Old Covenant as an EXTERNAL covenant has no force except in the fulfillment of all its SHADOW/TYPES in the actual Person and redemptive work of Christ. The whole Old Testament anticipated, and has its only fulfillment in the Person of Christ and specifically his death with regard to remission of sins. Hence, the analogy in verse 17 has the "old" testament in view as "a testament" whose "force" or validity can only be found in the death of Christ as its completion/fulfillment. Hence, the death of Christ is necessary or the "force" of the whole Old Testament is rendered meaningless and invalid.

• He is not teaching in verse 17 that it was not possible for salvation to be applied personally and subjectively to anyone living prior to the cross because the Bible clearly and repeatedly contradicts that assertion (Acts 10:43; Heb. 11; Rom. 4:5-11; etc.). If Old Testament saints were INFERIOR to us, then why are they set forth as OUR EXAMPLES to imitate if they have not even the Spirit of God in them (Abraham, Job, John The Baptist, Isaiah, etc.)???

The same gospel, same Savior and same way of salvation has been the same from Genesis to Revelation (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; etc.) because the SAME UNIVERSAL PROBLEM has existed from Genesis to Revelation - sin and spiritual separation due to sin. There can be no other solution to this problem than remission of sins with imputed righteousness AND spiritual union.

The only difference before the cross is progressive revelation as the essential "seed" form of the gospel is expanded until complete revelation by the fulfillment in the first coming of Christ. According to the revelation available (which was sufficient to save) the Old Testament saints (Christians by faith) looked forward by faith in God's gospel promise of the coming Christ/Messiah, while we look back by faith to the more completed revelation of the gospel.

Prior to the cross, it was sufficient to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God whom the prophets had promised would come. After the cross, the gospel must include the cross as the means for "how" the promised Messiah accomplished that promise (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

 

THE BOTTOM LINE

The bottom line is that Darrell and his followers must admit to the universal nature of the problem (sin and spiritual separation) but have no solution for that problem between Genesis and Acts 2:1 except promote ANOTHER GOSPEL of justification by the deeds of the law which Paul repudiates in Romans 3:24-5:2.

Their solution for spiritual separation is 4000 years too late.

This is the same problem for universal church advocates. Their interpreted means to include spiritual union with Christ - the body of Christ/church is the baptism in the Spirit which again is 4000 years too late as it is time restricted to Pentecost. Hence, they too must deny spiritual union with Christ, thus proclaim a salvation if any salvation between Genesis and Acts 2 as OUTSIDE Christ spiritually. Since, the "foundation" of the church is New Testament in origin, and since they make salvation and the church inseparable (to be outside their "true" church is to be lost and to be inside is to be saved) then they too must invent some other kind of gospel, some other kind of salvation prior to Pentecost, which proves the so-called universal invisible church theory is merely another perversion of the true gospel of Christ.

The bottom line is they must admit to the universal problem but have no universal solution until 4000 years after the problem because they argue the cross must occur FIRST before APPLICATION of cross salvation can be applied. Hence, they are forced to come up with some other kind of SUBJECTIVELY applied salvation prior to the cross and actually prior to Pentecost.

Hence, theoretically (theologically) they are preaching "another gospel" a church/salvation gospel they admit had no existence prior to Pentecost and yet the Bible teaches clearly that the SAME savior (Jn. 14:6/Acts 4:12), SAME way (Mt. 7:13-14; Acts 4:12)) and SAME gospel (Jn. 3:16/Acts 10:43) is preached both before and after the cross WITHOUT WORKS. Their interpretational system is theoretically a corruption, perversion and actual repudiation of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please take note of the term "theoretically" as I hope they do preach the simple gospel from their pulpits except whenever they come to their church doctrine of salvation.

 

Aaron prepositions are extremely important (howbeit can be difficult to interpret) in the NT.

IMO, Matthew 3:11 is better translated as in the 1901 American Standard Version (also the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate):

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Because the Greek prepositional word is en not meta (for instance) and in my opinion is locative not instrumental.

In the first occurrence of with in Matthew 3:11 this gives credence to the Church of England's "water" as the instrument of non-immersion baptism where in points to immersion. Carrying through to the second occurrence of with the Holy Ghost rather than in the Holy Ghost opens the door to an even more significant error of the Church of England and other Protestant churches.

HankD